This is an incredibly bad faith argument. What are you saying? Because everything is propaganda, either everything should be allowed or everything should be banned?

What happens within the borders of a country is different, even if it is spying and suppression of human rights and what not.

The destiny of a country should be in the hands of it's people. Be it good, bad or worse. But if you allow propaganda from another country to enter into your media, all is lost. Why? Because you lose faith in everything. How is one sure the revolution in a country is pure bred from that country? How is one sure the change one sought is because of the needs of the people of that country?

It's an incredibly dangerous situation. Even if your own govt. spies on you, stopping the propaganda of a foreign country takes precedence at all costs, if necessary, even by war.

> Because everything is propaganda, either everything should be allowed or everything should be banned?

How are either of those things worse than let's ban this propaganda but allow that propaganda? Is propaganda only bad if you happen to 'disagree' with it (ie not be as extensively indoctrinated by it)?

> Because you lose faith in everything.

Including, according to your argument, propaganda from who you think (because of propaganda) are on your side.

Propaganda from what is supposed to be your own side is actually, if anything, more repugnant and indefensible than 'enemy' propaganda.

> Even if your own govt. spies on you, stopping the propaganda of a foreign country takes precedence at all costs, if necessary, even by war.

So when your own country, while not spying on you, spreads propaganda in another country, you think it's totally understandable if that other country starts a war over it?

> So when your own country, while not spying on you, spreads propaganda in another country, you think it's totally understandable if that other country starts a war over it?

Yes. In today's world where mis-information and propaganda can topple governments and wreak havoc in societies, it's imperative that a destructive act of propaganda be seen akin to an actual act of war.

Well, I don't agree it warrants actual warfare, but I'm upvoting you for taking a consistent stance.

American social media app's dominate my country. Google 99% market share. Facebook/Instagram 95% market share in social. 5eyes/PRISM (they're not gonna forgive snowden, he ruined their reputation) monitors my country (not part of the anglospehere) and I never consented.

Am I supposed to tell my government to block American apps so that I can compete with American apps or on "national security" grounds? Because this is the trend American's will see. And if Zuck is reading this, you're shooting your own foot. What do you think is gonna happen? You're pitting the government against TikTok because your company cannot compete fairly. You think you'll win like this? Your Facebook/Instagram will get banned in future by other democratic countries in future because of the precedent you're going to be setting.

Let China do it's thing. It may very well turn out that their way of governance is better. Losers stick to old ways, if it turns out it's the superior system, they'll clearly be better.

But for a system to be proven takes decades/centuries. As long as China does not force it's system, it's fine in my eyes.

>Am I supposed to tell my government to block American apps so that I can compete with American apps or on "national security" grounds?

The primary motive is to curb propaganda. If all the countries in the world blocked data collection, businesses all over would stop data collection.

>You're pitting the government against TikTok because your company cannot compete fairly

Perhaps. But if the new competing app also collects data, the govt. ought to shut it down. Ultimately, I want data collection to stop.

>It may very well turn out that their way of governance is better

Governance is different from protecting basic human rights. An authoritarian government is a danger to the whole world. You can see that already happening with Turkey.

How is Turkey a danger to the whole world?

And didn't the Turkish people vote in Erdogan?

It is actually a very interesting example to set that Microsoft is buying English speaking TikTok regions. I wonder how many other unions or countries are considering forcing Facebook, Google, etc to sell their local operations to a local company?

Countries are propaganda. They’re imaginary lines controlled by information.

If you really think the rest of the world is that dangerous, then block off all foreign websites...

Ask a Chinese citizen to publicly speak out and push back against the CCP and see if they are (rightly) afraid to do so. Ask an American to publicly speak out and push back against the US government, and you'd get laughed at since basically 99% of Americans do that daily.

I don't 100% agree. Actually we do criticise CCP alot and it's as proliferate and popular as a cultural phenomenon itself (especially the older generation since people in power back then were even worse). It's true no one would raise up a giant placard on the street 'publically' but that's just culture difference. If you must think it's a sign of repression then I can't convince you.

Is it a cultural difference or is it the fear of a violent crackdown, which has happened in the past?

[edit to make less likely to cause problems for people reading HN in China]

I don't want to represent anyone but I personally think the fear is a bit over exaggerated. Ordinary people in general don't have such fear. You really have to get the attention of the very top and pissing people off big time. It's mostly having nothing to do with democratic movements. See example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Lijun_incident. And people in general enjoying discussing these issues and will understand all the subtext.

What would happen to people who started to publicly protest for the firing of everyone involved in the suppression of Dr. Li Wenliang's warning about COVID and his police detention and orders to stay quiet? Would it be possible to agitate for change, or would the movement's leaders be arrested and/or have their lives ruined?

There were 8 main doctors involved at the initial mess up. Eventually they are all publicly restored but the case of Li Wenliang led to a storm of internet protest (which I believe is the only thing covered in mainstream media). Some couldn't be taken seriously since it morphed into a meme (translation and circulation of the banned text into music sheet, mose code etc). But the truth is the ideological definition has been so fixed that it becomes sort of reverse psychology when people hear about protesting on the street, agitate for change they would feel appalled. In reality small protests did happen everywhere against injustice (just not in name of democracy). But of course these are just my opinions.

My point was there was no accountability for actively suppressing warnings about what has been the one of the largest pandemics in modern history. If Chinese citizens demanded those responsible be held accountable, what would happen to them? Ignored? Warned by the police to apologize and stay quiet? Arrested?

In case of Li Wenliang and the initial COVID 19 mess up, some level of accountability did happen. The court ruled in favor of Li Wenliang, said the police's treatment was not right, and the police apologized. Also, the Wuhan city officials who handled the initial COVID 19 case were fired.

Generally nothing happens to people who complain, unless they instigate mass protests or are deemed a threat to the state. As for whether govt officials listen to them: they do, although not always. Depends on the case.

In China, one negative remark about the government may get you a visit from the police and a stern talking-to. A history of such remarks may get you interrogated or fined. For extreme violators you may not be allowed on social media at all, and you may lose your job.

In America, one politically incorrect mark may get you not allowed on social media at all, right from the start. It may also lead to your immediate termination from your job, if your single remark attracts any attention whatsoever online. You may be de-platformed. You may be sued. Your bank may decide to close your account. And the people are angry. They want to punish thought criminals. If you think the Bad Thoughts, you deserve everything you have coming to you.

In China, the government is remote, people are generally happy with the job it's doing, and no one wants to criticize it. So the rule of "don't criticize the government" is not a burdensome one, and (aside from a few vocal minorities at the fringes of society) people don't care.

Yet in America, the smorgasbord of people and thoughts you are not permitted to criticize are around you 24/7. They are pushed continually in the media you consume (for "representation"), promoted as heroes and "brave", and if you disagree with any of this, at all, you had better hold your tongue about it.

One of these countries deeply and heavily oppresses its populace, with continual threats of job loss, social ostracization, and suspicion about whom around you might be an informant, a political extremist or opportunist who will report your Bad Thoughts on the nearest social media platform and seek your immediate and total ruination.

The other country does no such thing, and the idea that you would have to live in a state of perpetually policing your thoughts to not get fired or ostracized seems bizarre and paranoid when you relate it to its people.

I'll let you guess which country is which.

Source: 30 years in the U.S., 10 years in China. Frequent travel between the two, and tons of exposure to many people in both.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. As much as I find the federal agents' behavior of be despicable, they're not what the parent post is talking about. I have yet seen someone dragged out of their homes for making a snaky tweet against trump, or speaking out against him in major media outlets.

I don’t think I’ll ever get over how Federal agents, in uniform, making lawful arrests, where suspects were Mirandized, interviewed, and then released, somehow becomes black-bagging simply because they didn’t put a decal on their vehicle.

People in Portland were being arrested without being Mirandized.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/07/18/federa...

> This should not be happening in the United States. A person cannot be constitutionally arrested without charge, without being read his rights, and without the arresting officials identifying whom they work for and into whose custody the arrestee is being taken or where he is being taken.

This is at least partly false. First, you need to be Mirandized before being interviewed. You do not need to be Mirandized at the moment you are being arrested.

“The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you.”

Second, you can be arrested with reasonable suspicion even if no charges are ultimately brought;

“In the U.S. and its territories, FBI special agents may make arrests for any federal offense committed in their presence or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, a felony violation of U.S. laws”

Third, you can be legally arrested by plainclothes officers that identify themselves as police. In some jurisdictions you can even be arrested by another citizen.

> This is at least partly false. First, you need to be Mirandized before being interviewed. You do not need to be Mirandized at the moment you are being arrested.

> because they didn’t put a decal on their vehicle.

Dude do you really see no problem with this? My biggest issue is how do I know if they're actual law enforcement agencies or some thugs? If I were in the situation, I would not know to resist the arrest or to comply because I do not know if they're kidnappers or law enforcers.

I do not have much of a problem if I know they're actual law enforcers. But I can easily see this slipping into worse things like gangs pretending to be law enforcement and kidnapping people.

In the video the guy was not Mirandized or told that he was under arrest.

Is this a real post?

How are people supposed to record, for the purpose of later review, the actions of a un-identified set of people?

> The American equivalent would be BLM protests. We all know how the feds are kidnapping citizens without warrant.

I mentioned this happening two weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23874084), while living in America. I think it's a legitimate cause for concern. However I did not fear that I'd be sent to a concentration camp for mentioning it. The situation has not [yet?] deteriorated so far as to be comparable with the CCP's China.

A political system requires stability to survive, both internally and externally. Internal propaganda(to spread certain cultural norms and beliefs) is a stabilizing act, while external propaganda is (potentially) destabilizing. In this context, it makes sense why one would be allowed and the other wouldn't.

Are you implying that there's no difference between a democracy in bad shape and a 1-party dictatorship with decades of mass murder and genocide under their belt? You would let them spread their propaganda freely "because Facebook"?